2017 Wimbledon Final: Federer v Cilic

[DarthFed]

It's not garbage, it's the reality if you like it or not. Poor tournament and more that ridiculous final with a player that not even could play well due to his foot but at least he has had the guts to play until the last point knowing that he went to lose. If I didn't like him too much before now I like him a lot more, a big applause for him
And clearly Federer is the most lucky player of all the tour so far, word!

Yes he was extremely lucky not to face Lopez. That was the true gift. And by the way, your tears are delicious. Keep 'em coming

 

[Moxie]

So it turns out it was a blister. I feel bad for Marin, but at the same time I've seen both Rafa and Novak play with bloody socks, and I didn't see them crying like little girls. I'm finding it hard to feel too bad. Richie McCaw played the finals with a broken toe for ffs... Man the hell up..

I gotta say I'm a little shocked about that. You'd think you could play through a little more pain in a Wimbledon final. I guess when you compounded it with the pain of getting beaten so badly it was all too much.

 

[Federberg]

I gotta say I'm a little shocked about that. You'd think you could play through a little more pain in a Wimbledon final. I guess when you compounded it with the pain of getting beaten so badly it was all too much.

That's what I'm thinking too

 

[Federberg]

Yes he was extremely lucky not to face Lopez. That was the true gift. And by the way, your tears are delicious. Keep me coming

Lol! That's what I'm thinking too! Her whining is as pleasing to read as the joy of a fellow Fedfan :lulz2:

 

[El Dude]

I love how Carol feels it necessary to come into a Roger Slam celebration and just crap everywhere. No congratulations, no "well done, Roger." Just sour grapes.

Next time you accuse anyone of bagging on Rafa, just remember this thread, Carol.

 

[MartyB]

This certainly was not the most exciting final I've witnessed but it was as gratifying as any. Well done Fed. An extraordinary athlete that makes our sport even greater. On to the US Open...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So it turns out it was a blister. I feel bad for Marin, but at the same time I've seen both Rafa and Novak play with bloody socks, and I didn't see them crying like little girls. I'm finding it hard to feel too bad. Richie McCaw played the finals with a broken toe for ffs... Man the hell up..

1. He did not cry because of the pain caused by blisters. He cried mostly because he knew he will not be able to play his best when it mattered and so he cried due to the circumstances. He explained it in his post-match presser.

2. Also, contrary to what Moxie says, his crying is not a calculated move to elicit sympathy from the crowd or anything like that. It was natural and most folks will be able to understand and sympathize with his situation.

3. Foot blisters are not a joke. When the blisters cause pain, your movement is seriously affected. When your movement is seriously affected, you cannot get to the ball in time. When you cannot get to the ball in time, it does not matter how great strokes you possess in your artillery.

4. I remember that Rafa actually withdrew (or retired) from the Rome tournament one year because of foot blisters. I think Mosquitoe won the match against Rafa. I will have to look it up. I think Novak ended up winning Rome that year without facing Rafa.

5. While I am disappointed in a fairly non-competitive match, I don't think Cilic had the ability to stop TMF when he (TMF) is so focused
on the mission, even without any blisters.

 

[Moxie]

1. He did not cry because of the pain caused by blisters. He cried mostly because he knew he will not be able to play his best when it mattered and so he cried due to the circumstances. He explained it in his post-match presser.

2. Also, contrary to what Moxie says, his crying is not a calculated move to elicit sympathy from the crowd or anything like that. It was natural and most folks will be able to understand and sympathize with his situation.

3. Foot blisters are not a joke. When the blisters cause pain, your movement is seriously affected. When your movement is seriously affected, you cannot get to the ball in time. When you cannot get to the ball in time, it does not matter how great strokes you possess in your artillery.

4. I remember that Rafa actually withdrew (or retired) from the Rome tournament one year because of foot blisters. I think Mosquitoe won the match against Rafa. I will have to look it up. I think Novak ended up winning Rome that year without facing Rafa.

5. While I am disappointed in a fairly non-competitive match, I don't think Cilic had the ability to stop TMF when he (TMF) is so focused
on the mission, even without any blisters.

Yo, when did I ever say that his crying was a calculated move to elicit sympathy? Seriously. I felt sorry for the guy, and mostly everyone did, at that moment. He was clearly bereft. A few people lost some sympathy for the call to the trainer without being seen for anything, though not me. I still stand by being surprised if it was a foot blister that caused that much loss of form, or that he couldn't overcome it a bit more.

Nadal didn't withdraw in that 2nd round match against Ferrero in Rome, he lost. With blisters on his feet, but that could also be considered a time to cut your losses. That was in 2008, and he did win the FO that year. Smart choice. Also, he was playing in the AO with a grotesque blister on his hand, and made it to the final, only to be undone by a back injury, and a trending Wawrinka. I hate to give Cilic a hard time, because he couldn't turn in a good performance today, and he was heartbroken about that. That's rough. If you think I was too harsh on Cilic, don't look just at me.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Yo, when did I ever say that his crying was a calculated move to elicit sympathy? Seriously. I felt sorry for the guy, and mostly everyone did, at that moment. He was clearly bereft. A few people lost some sympathy for the call to the trainer without being seen for anything, though not me. I still stand by being surprised if it was a foot blister that caused that much loss of form, or that he couldn't overcome it a bit more.

Nadal didn't withdraw in that 2nd round match against Ferrero in Rome, he lost. With blisters on his feet, but that could also be considered a time to cut your losses. That was in 2008, and he did win the FO that year. Smart choice. Also, he was playing in the AO with a grotesque blister on his hand, and made it to the final, only to be undone by a back injury, and a trending Wawrinka. I hate to give Cilic a hard time, because he couldn't turn in a good performance today, and he was heartbroken about that. That's rough. If you think I was too harsh on Cilic, don't look just at me.

Sorry, it was attomole who said that.

 

[Haelfix]

So I'm happy for Federer and Nadal fans. RG and Wimbledon obviously prove yet again just how great those two are. But a definite C- in terms of quality of matches and the quality of the rest of the tour.

Yet again we see a sort of catharsis the second we transition away from hards, with a bunch of pros playing truly horrendous tennis. I mean Federers strongest challenge came from ancient Tommy Haas! No good!

 

[Moxie]

So I'm happy for Federer and Nadal fans. RG and Wimbledon obviously prove yet again just how great those two are. But a definite C- in terms of quality of matches and the quality of the rest of the tour.

Yet again we see a sort of catharsis the second we transition away from hards, with a bunch of pros playing truly horrendous tennis. I mean Federers strongest challenge came from ancient Tommy Haas! No good!

If your point is that the hard-courts are the more democratizing surface of the game, Fedal proved you rather wrong this year. They haven't just done well on the natural surfaces, or only on their favorites. At the risk of boasting, Federer and Nadal, particularly in the notable absence of Djokovic and Murray, have rather proven how much better they are than the field. And, in terms of the Big 4, they've proven that, well, the 4 are head and shoulders above the rest. Without a strong Novak and Andy, Roger and Rafa have basically owned the year. We're heading into the last 3rd of the year, and there are a few promising up-and-comers. But I do think the race to the finish will be Fedal, once again. And why? Because they're better than 99% of the players out there.

 

[lob]

There was an article by someone, I forget where, that the topmost guys on the tour have too many advantages. A fantastic team of top physio, top coach, top trainer, dedicated nutritionist, multiple servants, nannies, private jets and residences in multiple cities across the planet. Their fiercely loyal coaching team studies each opponent, match etc. and devices targeted strategies in each match. They travel with their entire tram everywhere. On top of that they have an adoring fan base across the globe to draw support from. On top of all that given that they are very high status celebrities, even non-fans and reporters, are genuinely nice to them and give them attention. They are cushioned from the ordinary shocks, annoyances, frustrations of life that any player outside the top 10 will not be insulated from.

Is it correct to say that none of these practices existed, perhaps even in the 1990s? The talented and highly motivated newcomer had a fair shot. To what extent is this state of affairs responsible for the difficulty of youngsters in breaking through to beat a top player once in a while? Can they fight the pecking order or believe that they can topple someone at the top?

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[I.Haychew]

You wish Moxie, he has a lot more left in the tank if he chooses

Then maybe all of the 2008 and onward decline BS is just that...BS. Just questioning.

 

[Moxie]

There was an article by someone, I forget where, that the topmost guys on the tour have too many advantages. A fantastic team of top physio, top coach, top trainer, dedicated nutritionist, multiple servants, nannies, private jets and residences in multiple cities across the planet. Their fiercely loyal coaching team studies each opponent, match etc. and devices targeted strategies in each match. They travel with their entire tram everywhere. On top of that they have an adoring fan base across the globe to draw support from. On top of all that given that they are very high status celebrities, even non-fans and reporters, are genuinely nice to them and give them attention. They are cushioned from the ordinary shocks, annoyances, frustrations of life that any player outside the top 10 will not be insulated from.

Is it correct to say that none of these practices existed, perhaps even in the 1990s? The talented and highly motivated newcomer had a fair shot. To what extent is this state of affairs responsible for the difficulty of youngsters in breaking through to beat a top player once in a while? Can they fight the pecking order or believe that they can topple someone at the top?

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

That is an excellent point. However, even the mid-level players these days have a great coach and team. I offer the example of Dimitrov. Or Tomic, or Kyrgios. Are they so unequally fortuned or even talented such that they couldn't combat the behemoths? Obviously, there are other players who are barely making it on the tour. But that's not Isner or Cilic or Berdych or Ferrer or Raonic. Or Tsonga or Gasquet or Monfils. And certainly not Nishikori, who makes way more money than his level commands. These guys have resources, and the benefit of their ranking in draws. If they can't do it, then it's not about inequity, if you ask me.

 

[I.Haychew]

I gotta say I'm a little shocked about that. You'd think you could play through a little more pain in a Wimbledon final. I guess when you compounded it with the pain of getting beaten so badly it was all too much.

He may have cried, but he DID play through it.

 

[Moxie]

He may have cried, but he DID play through it.

Believe me, I felt for Cilic. And he almost made something of it, at the end. I'm pretty sure he's sorry that he didn't make a better show of himself today, and I'm sorry if he was hampered. But I'm still going to say, that, if it was 'just' a blister, he could have fought better through it. In one of the biggest moments of your career, are you going to let a blister throw off your serve and your bh? I honestly think that the problem was less on the bottom of his foot than across the net and between his ears.

 

[I.Haychew]

There was an article by someone, I forget where, that the topmost guys on the tour have too many advantages. A fantastic team of top physio, top coach, top trainer, dedicated nutritionist, multiple servants, nannies, private jets and residences in multiple cities across the planet. Their fiercely loyal coaching team studies each opponent, match etc. and devices targeted strategies in each match. They travel with their entire tram everywhere. On top of that they have an adoring fan base across the globe to draw support from. On top of all that given that they are very high status celebrities, even non-fans and reporters, are genuinely nice to them and give them attention. They are cushioned from the ordinary shocks, annoyances, frustrations of life that any player outside the top 10 will not be insulated from.

Is it correct to say that none of these practices existed, perhaps even in the 1990s? The talented and highly motivated newcomer had a fair shot. To what extent is this state of affairs responsible for the difficulty of youngsters in breaking through to beat a top player once in a while? Can they fight the pecking order or believe that they can topple someone at the top?

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

Sounds like a Bernie Sanders tirade. Natural talent be damned: We must all have the best physios, coaches, trainers, nutritionists, servants, nannies, etc. The playing field must be leveled. https://www.conventionofstates.com/...il&utm_term=0_45196125c1-8dbff18ccc-218493213

 

[I.Haychew]

Regarding this final, I'm mainly disappointed with Cilic in this aspect...This is the first post-match ceremony I've seen in which the runner-up did not congratulate the winner. Or maybe I missed something?

 

[Moxie]

Sounds like a Bernie Sanders tirade. Natural talent be damned: We must all have the best physios, coaches, trainers, nutritionists, servants, nannies, etc. The playing field must be leveled. https://www.conventionofstates.com/...il&utm_term=0_45196125c1-8dbff18ccc-218493213

It's not an unfair point from @lob. Do you think a very talented undercard player has the same chance as a top player with a full team? Especially as s/he works their way through futures and quallies? Paying for the travel, and hoping for a little prize money? If you think that tennis is fully equalized on pure talent, you're kidding yourself. The players get it, so they shifted the money down to give the quallies and early rounds more money. Too socialist for you? Too bad. Apparently the players think it's good for tennis. I do, too. I keeps good players in the game.

 

[I.Haychew]

Believe me, I felt for Cilic. And he almost made something of it, at the end. I'm pretty sure he's sorry that he didn't make a better show of himself today, and I'm sorry if he was hampered. But I'm still going to say, that, if it was 'just' a blister, he could have fought better through it. In one of the biggest moments of your career, are you going to let a blister throw off your serve and your bh? I honestly think that the problem was less on the bottom of his foot than across the net and between his ears.

That very well could be. But...None of us can really know, because we aren't Marin Cilic.